HC Deb 13 February 1958 vol 582 cc572-4
54. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a manufacturer of key holders was recently informed by the Customs and Excise authorities that a holder for the pocket, designed in such a way that the flap closing it would prevent the keys from falling out and damaging the pocket. would be subject to 60 per cent. Purchase Tax, but if the size of the flap could be reduced to inch in size, the holder would be free of Purchase Tax; and whether, in view of the fact that the holder with the ½-inch flap would be ineffective from the point of view of protecting the user's pocket, he will instruct the officials to reconsider the matter.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

Yes, Sir. The matter has been reconsidered and, as my hon. Friend is aware, the anomaly has been rectified.

Mr. Nabarro

I think it will be agreed that good progress is now being made in this field. Will my hon. and learned Friend now deal with the matter sensibly and objectively and give instructions to the Customs and Excise authorities to endeavour conscientiously to abolish all these quite ridiculous anomalies that are wasting so much of the nation's trade and time?

Mr. Simon

I cannot accept the implications of that supplementary question, but we should be grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the anomalies which unquestionably exist.

55. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the regulation was introduced laying down that door knockers 5 inches or more in length shall be free of tax whereas doorknockers under that length carry 30 per cent. Purchase Tax; and what has been the revenue from Purchase. Tax on door-knockers for each of the past five years for which figures are available.

Mr. Simon

Following consultation with the trade, doorknockers over 44 inches long have been treated as free of tax under a relief for builders' hardware introduced in 1948. On the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave him on 17th December.

Mr. Nabarro

Why is there this invidious distinction between doorknocking nutcrackers and nutcracking door-knockers—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Nabarro

This is an invidious distinction, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

It may be an invidious distinction, as the hon. Member says, but I rather think he is now anticipating Question No. 56. Is not that about nutcrackers?

Mr. Nabarro

I understood the Financial Secretary to say that he was answering the Questions together. It is a quite understandable mistake, because that is how the Chancellor of the Exchequer generally rides off these difficulties. Will my hon. and learned Friend put this matter into good order?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member should ask Question No. 56 if he wants to get on to the subject of nutcrackers.

56. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in view of the fact that a nutcracker is liable to Purchase Tax at 15 per cent. whereas a door knocker over 5 inches in length is free of tax, there is an increasing practice of supplying nutcrackers with screw holes so that they could theoretically be used as doorknockers, with the result that with such modification these nutcrackers become free of tax; and what instructions have been issued to Customs and Excise staff with regard to this matter.

Mr. Simon

No, Sir; I do not think Customs staff need instructions to help them distinguish a nutcracker from a doorknocker.

Mr. Nabarro

Now will my hon. and learned Friend apply himself to the Question that I have put to him? Why is there this invidious distinction between doorknocking nutcrackers and nutcracking doorknockers? Is he aware that this is a perfectly well-known device, practised by manufacturers? I have evidence of it in my hand. Is he aware that this ridiculous position, which was mentioned in a leading article in The Times on 11th February, is bringing the whole of the Purchase Tax Schedules into disrepute? Is it not time that the matter was drastically overhauled by abolition of the Purchase Tax and substitution of a sales turnover tax at a very small and uniform rate over the whole field?

Mr. Simon

My hon. Friend tempts me to reply in the words of the conductor Richter to the second flute at Covent Garden—"Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never."

Mr. Shurmer

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while this may be a jocular matter for some people, in Birmingham a number of firms which manufacture brass goods are continually coming into conflict with the Customs and Excise about exactly what Purchase Tax must be paid due to the anomalies referred to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Is he further aware that when the present Leader of the House was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I brought up the question of the corkscrew on the dog's tail, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that Purchase Tax had got into such a mess that it ought to be completely reorganised?